User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2013/August

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to pick up my requested article from the drop box. . . I did not know it was in. . . many smilesStmullin (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Khemkaran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4th Cavalry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification
Hello LeadSongDog,

Thanks for the clarifying remarks about the WP:notability policy on my talk page. The shift in focus from sources by the person to sources about the person makes a lot of sense. Thanks so much, Jcmeberhard (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions?
Hello LeadSongDog,

You reviewed an article I created recently, and suggested that I restructure my sources to be more reliable and appropriate for a LP article. I've made some changes based on your advice. Would you be willing to review the changes and let me know if I'm on the right track? I included more publicly available sources 'about'/describing the subject's work, rather than journal articles 'by' the subject.

Cordially, Jcmeberhard (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Case change at Vedas
I'm not sure what you were thinking there and I've reverted you after finding an outraged comment at Talk:Vedas. So far as I can see, upper case Vedas is standard. Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied there. The MOS is clearly a lost cause, or should that be "Lost Cause"? LeadSongDog come howl!  13:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Should it be "jupiter", then?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  16:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability
Hello LeadSongDog,

It seems to me that you are trying to apply WP:GNG to academics rather than WP:PROF. Both are accepted guidelines, and the general guideline is not more definitive than an applicable subject-specific guideline. The frequency of citation of their scientific papers is a valid and accepted tool for judging the notability of academics, even if biographical coverage of the person in independent, reliable sources is lacking. We can get non-controversial biographical details from profiles on university websites, which are considered reliable sources for such information. That's my view of the matter.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  15:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From the nutshell atop wp:Prof, "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability oguideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work". The fact is, we don't know how that school selected him to give that speech in which he describes his background, but it is certainly routine for such commencement speeches to emphasize to their graduating-class audiences that they are taking on a difficult but noble calling, using examples of the obstacles they had to overcome. The university's advertising department is hardly an objective source for the accomplishments of alumni. So far as I'm aware, such speeches are seldom subjected to editorial scrutiny and fact checking by independent reviewers. Accordingly, I'd regard the uncontroversial details as extending to birth and graduation dates, citation information in reviewed and archived publications, etc. I see nothing reliable cited to back up any claim that his work was particularly influential. He is one of many authors on most of the publications. Where do you see something truly independent that might indicate that the emphasis is not wp:UNDUE? LeadSongDog come howl!  16:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I neither said nor implied that the raw number of papers published is evidence of notability. Rather, it is the frequency of citations of those papers by other academics that is the relevant factor, evaluated using tools such as the g-index and the h-index. I believe that he scrapes by, but if consensus is that he doesn't, so be it. I also never implied that giving a commencement speech confers notability, but I do believe that it is proper to include biographical information from such a speech into the article, just as we routinely incorporate uncontroversial material from autobiographies into our articles about a wide range of people. As for WP:UNDUE, that applies to the content within an article not whether the article ought to exist. It is not "undue" to keep an article about one surgeon/associate professor just because an article about another chemist/full professor has not yet been written. Let's write the second article, not delete the first.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but where is the analysis showing the frequency of citations to his papers? I have not seen it, have you? If it has been done, great, let's describe it on the article talkpage so editors know the finding. Short of that, I still don't see a reliable source for most of the detail in the article. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * did that analysis, and commented on it. Both agreed that he might be notable, or at least, that it is a borderline, arguable case. I won't be unhappy if this article gets deleted, but I have tried to address what I see as the legitimate concerns about the article, by editing the article itself as well as by making my points. I believe that the encyclopedia is better off with articles like this, stripped of promotionalism by neutral editors. I understand and respect the contrary arguments, though.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)